umj/ulaii 

ill 
1/ 

PLAN  OF 

A DIRECT  ELECTION  LAW 

FOR  DETERMINING 

j.  i ft 

True  Primary  and  Final  Elections  by  the  Will 
of  a Concurring  Majority  of  all  the  Voters 
Concerned  and  at  One  Direct  Voting. 

By  THOS.  D.  INGRAM,  M.  D. 

Author  of  “Truthful  Elections  the  Corner-stone  of  Representative  Govern- 
ment,” “ Elections  Directly  by  the  People,”  and  Other  Papers. 

There  are  two  distinct  viewpoints  from  which  the  elec- 
tion of  men  to  office  may  be  considered.  One  of  these  is 
from  the  position  of  the  mass  of  intelligent  voters,  who 
are  aiming  to  secure  true  representatives  of  a major- 
ity of  all  the  voters  concerned,  who  are  in  turn  to  make 
and  execute  the  laws  for  the  people.  The  other  is  from 
the  position  of  the  office-seekers  who  are  aiming  to  ex- 
ploit as  large  a number  of  the  voters  as  possible,  and  in 
some  way  or  another  secure  the  offices  of  the  Government 

The  proposed  election  law  herein  discussed  is  intended* 
to  secure  true  representatives  of  the  people,  through 
elections  to  be  conducted  wholly  by  the  people  and  in 
the  interest  of  all  the  people. 

The  will  of  a concurring  majority  of  all  the  quali- 
fied voters  concerned,  when  truthfully  expressed  in  any 
election,  cannot  be  gainsaid,  nor  can  the  conclusions  of 
a majority  be  profitably  delayed.  To  contend  for  the  rule 
of  a less  number  than  a majority  because  they  may  pos- 
sess superior  intelligence  is  but  to  endanger  ourselves  to 
210—1 


2 


3 2. 4*  7 3 

the  frequent  rule  of  a well-organized  or  viciously  con- 
trolled plurality  whose  qualifications  are  the  least  worthy 
of  respect. 

In  any  election,  when  a choice  is  to  be  made  from  but 
two  candidates  or  propositions,  a simple  direct  vote  at 
once  determines  the  one  or  the  other  to  be  the  choice  of 
a majority.  But  when  a choice  is  to  be  made  from  among 
three  or  more  candidates  or  propositions  and  a concur- 
rence of  a majority  of  all  the  voters  is  not  at  once  as- 
sured, some  provision  must  be  made  for  reaching  further 
concurrences. 

In  convened  bodies,  voting  viva  voce , further  concur- 
rences are  reached  through  taking  successive  trial  ballot- 
ings,  and  it  is  only  because  some  voters  or  delegates  are 
willing  to  yield  and  adopt  a second  choice,  and  thus  add 
their  support  to  some  other  voter’s  or  delegate’s  first 
choice,  that  further  concurrences  may  here  be  secured. 

And  yet  further,  it  is  only  through  this  willingness  to 
yield  wherein  some  voters  may  adopt  their  second  choice , 
and  thus  add  their  support  to  some  other  voter's  first 
choice  of  candidates,  that  further  concurrences  can  ever 
he  reached,  through  any  method  of  voting. 

Since  many  intelligent  individual  voters  may  not  only 
have  a first  choice  among  the  candidates  named  for  any 
office,  but  may  have  a choice  among  the  remaining  ones, 
or,  while  being  divided  as  to  their  first  choices  among 
several  candidates,  may  yet  desire  to  reach  further  con- 
currences with  men  of  like  mind,  in  opposition  to  the 
supporters  of  certain  objectionable  candidates;  and 
since  a willingness  to  yield  in  case  a voter’s  first  choice 
•is  not  at  once  supported  by  a majority  of  all  the  voters 
concerned,  affords  the  only  possible  basis  for  reaching 
further  concurrences,  then  the  naming  of  a second  and 
such  successive  choices  as  a voter  may  see  fit  upon  his 
direct  ballot  can  alone  supply  the  necessary  provisions 


3 


for  reaching  further  concurrences,  and  finally,  the  will 
of  a concurring  majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned, 
through  direct  voting. 

To  provide  for  this  method  of  conducting  direct  elec- 
tions, let  each  State  either  amend  its  constitution  or 
amend  its  primary  and  general  election  laws,  in  effect  as 
follows: 

An  act  to  provide  by  law  for  reaching  the  will  of  a 
concurring  majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned  ha  any 
primary,  general  or  final  election,  at  one  direct  voting. 

Section  I.  At  every  primary,  general  or  final  election 
hereafter  to  be  held  in  this  State,  including  nominating 
elections  for  Senators  of  the  United  States,  every  quali- 
fied voter  shall  be  permitted  to  add  to  any  printed 
ballot  made  use  of,  and  in  a space  to  be  provided  for 
such  independent  voting,  the  name  of  any  person  or 
persons  he  may  see  fit.  And  he  shall  be  further  per- 
mitted to  mark  by  numbers,  using  the  numerals  1,  2,  3, 
and  so  on,  to  designate  the  order  of  his  preference  among 
these  candidates  whose  names  have  been  printed  on  the 
ballot,  as  well  as  any  he  may  have  added  thereto. 

Section  II.  A count  shall  be  made  from  these  ballots 
cast  at  each  local  polling  place,  which  shall  include,  under 
the  title  of  the  office  being  voted  for,  the  names  of  each 
candidate  found  upon  any  ballot,  and  separately  for  each 
candidate,  the  number  of  voters  making  him  their  first 
choice,  the  number  making  him  their  second  choice,  their 
third,  and  any  subsequent  choices,  all  of  which,  includ- 
ing the  ballots  cast,  shall  constitute  the  local  returns  to 
be  sent  to  the  county  seat. 

Section  III.  A count  shall  be  made  at  the  county  seat 
from  the  collected  returns  from  all  the  local  voting  dis- 
tricts within  the  county,  and  a similar  count  shall  be 
made  for  any  election  district  which  includes  either  less 
or  more  than  one  county;  and  again,  a similar  count 
shall  be  made  at  the  State  capital  from  the  collected 


4 


* 


returns  of  the  State  and  national  elections,  which  shall 
be  conducted  as  follows:  Under  the  head  of  the  office 
being  voted  for,  there  shall  be  found  the  whole  number 
of  voters  who  have  made  each  candidate  in  turn  their 
first  choice,  and  the  sum  of  these  numbers  will  show  the 
whole  number  of  voters  who  have  taken  part  in  the  elec- 
tion, while  a majority  will  be  any  number  in  excess  of 
one-half  of  these  voters. 

If  any  candidate  has  now  received  the  support  of  a 
majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned,  or  who  have  taken 
part  in  the  contest,  the.  election  will  be  thus  at  once 
decided. 

If,  however,  a majority  of  all  the  voters  have  not  con- 
curred, there  shall  then  be  found  from  the  returns  the 
number  of  voters  who  have  made  each  candidate,  in 
turn,  their  second  choice,  and  these  several  numbers 
shall  be  added,  respectively,  for  each  candidate,  to  those 
who  have  before  made  him  their  first  choice.  These 
sums  shall  be  recognized  for  each  candidate  as  his  new 
concurring,  or  new  relative  support.  When  each  addi- 
tion has  been  made  showing  the  new  relative  support  of 
each  candidate,  if  anyone  has  thus  received  the  concur- 
ring support  of  a majority  of  the  voters,  the  election 
will  now  be  decided.  Provided,  if  more  than  one  candi- 
date has  thus  received  the  concurring  support  of  more 
than  a majority  of  the  whole  number  of  voters,  the  one 
receiving  the  greater  support  shall  be  declared  elected. 

If,  however,  a majority  of  all  the  voters  have  not  yet 
concurred,  then  again  from  the  collected  returns  there 
shall  be  found  the  number  of  voters  making  each  candi- 
date in  turn  their  third  choice,  and  in  like  manner,  as 
before,  these  new  provisional  or  alternative  supports 
shall  be  added  to  those  who  have  before  concurred  upon 
this  candidate.  When  each  addition  has  been  made 
showing  again  for  each  candidate  a new  relative  support, 
if  any  one  has  thus  received  the  concurring  support  of  a 


5 


majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned,  the  election  has 
been  decided. 

In  this  manner  the  count  from  the  further  returns 
from  any  election  district  shall  proceed,  until  a majority 
of  all  the  voters  concerned  in  the  election  shall  have 
concurred,  or  else  until  all  the  returns  have  been  ex- 
hausted, when  the  candidate  who  has  received  the  largest 
concurring  support  must  be  declared  elected. 

Briefly  Illustrated,  This  Method  is  Shown  to  be  Both 
Simple  and  Effective. 

For  example,  in  an  election  for  mayor  of  a city,  where 
10,000  voters  are  concerned  and  5,001  would  be  a ma- 
jority, several  voter’s  ballots  when  marked  with  their 
first,  their  second,  and  succeeding  choices,  might  resem- 
ble the  following: 


For  Mayor. 

For  Mayor. 

For  Mayor. 

For  Mayor. 

A 

A 1 

A 

A 

B 1 

B 3 

B 

B 

C 

C 

C 1 

C 

D 

D 

D 2 

D 

E 2 

E 2 

E 

E 1 

When  the  returns  from  such  a direct  voting  have  been 
collected,  the  final  summary  sheet  would  resemble  the 
following: 


Order  of  Choices. 

Votes 
for  A. 

Votes 
for  B. 

Votes 
for  C. 

Votes 
for  D. 

Votes 
for  E. 

Whole 

No. 

Voters. 

Maj.  of 
Voters. 

As  first  choice  . . . 
As  second  choice. 
Newrelative  sup- 
ports   

1,500 

250 

2,500 

300 

1,000 

3.000 

1.000 

2,000 

3,500 

10,000 

5,001 

1,750 

2,800 

1,000 

4,000 

5,500 

This  summary  shows  that  a majority  have  not  con- 
curred upon  the  first  count  from  the  ballots.  D has  a 


6 


plurality  support  of  3,000  voters  at  this  count,  but  the 
election  is  not  yet  determined. 

Now,  since  the  voters  who  have  made  any  candidate 
their  second  choice  are  different  voters  from  those  who 
have  made  the  same  candidate  their  first  choice , then 
these  two  bodies  of  supporters  may  be  zMedtogether  for 
each  candidate  in  turn , and  the  sums  will  show  for  each 
candidate  a new  relative  concurring  support. 

Upon  this  second  count  from  the  returns  E is  shown 
to  have  received  the  support  of  5,500  different  voters, 
or  more  than  a majority  of  all  the  voters  who  have  taken 
part  in  the  election,  and  must  be  declared  elected. 

Note. — That  the  individual  voters  have  not  had  to 
drop  their  first  choice  in  order  to  support  their  second 
choice.  Such  voters  now  make  no  choice  between  these 
two  candidates,  but  place  either  of  them  in  full  oppo- 
sition to  all  other  candidates.  This  is  the  ideal  and  dis- 
tinctive feature  in  this  form  of  ballot  and  method  of 
building  up  further  concurrences  from  these  direct 
ballots. 

There  are  no  fallacies  in  this  method  of  solving  the 
problem  of  reaching  further  concurrences  or  for  finding 
the  concurring  will  of  a majority  of  all  the  voters  con- 
cerned at  one  direct  voting.  Any  imaginary  errors  sug- 
gesting themselves  from  a hasty  investigation  of  the 
plan  will  be  completely  dispelled  when  its  workings  have 
been  fully  and  truthfully  considered. 

This  plan  of  voting  takes  the  will  of  each  individual 
voter,  freely  and  fully  expressed  upon  his  ballot — which 
he  has  dropped  in  the  box  at  his  local  polling  place — and 
from  the  collected  returns  determines  with  mathematical 
exactness  the  candidate  upon  whom  a majority  of  all 
these  voters  have  first  concurred. 


7 


This  method  of  conducting  direct  elections  will  solve 
exactly  the  same  problem  for  any  organized  party  of 
voters , when  they  desire  to  determine  the  will  of  a con- 
curring majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned  in  making 
a party  nomination. 

The  proposed  form  of  ballot  has  an  ideal  significance 
in  that  it  allows  each  individual  voter  to  name  the 
order  of  his  preferences  among  the  candidates  for  any 
office,  and  thus  allows  him  to  provide  for  reaching  fur- 
ther concurrences  with  voters  of  like  mind  with  himself, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  allows  him  to  continue  his 
support  for  each  candidate  he  has  named  successively, 
placing  each  in  turn,  in  full  opposition  to  all  objection- 
able candidates  in  the  field. 

The  method  of  counting  from  these  direct  ballots  has 
again  an  ideal  value  in  that  it  aims  to  build  up  further 
concurrences  from  the  choices  named  upon  the  voter’s 
ballots,  giving  each  voter’s  ballot  an  equitable  weight  in 
determining  the  final  choice,  and  giving  each  candidate  a 
fair  and  equitable  opportunity  to  secure  all  the  support 
intended  for  him  at  the  successive  stages  of  the  count. 

Again  note — that  a voter  does  not  have  to  drop  his 
first  choice  in  order  to  make  his  second  choice  effective, 
and  so  on  thereafter. 

This  method  of  solving  the  problem  of  finding  the  will 
of  a concurring  majority  at  one  direct  voting  has  a uni- 
versal significance.  By  using  ballots  it  is  equally  servic- 
able  in  convened  bodies;  or  in  any  election,  no  matter 
how  widely  scattered  or  how  numerous  are  the  voters, 
and  no  matter  how  many  are  the  candidates,  proposi- 
tions or  things  whatsoever  from  which  one  is  to  be  se- 
lected. It  is  equally  applicable  to  an  election  of  a town 
constable  or,  it  may  be  used  in  an  election  of  a President 
of  the  United  States  directly  by  all  the  voters  concerned. 


8 


Methods  for  Conducting  Elections  of  Men  to  Office  Con- 
sidered from  a Different  Viewpoint. 

Or,  Through  Submission  to  the  Rule  of  a Few  Men. 

In  contrast  with  the  proposed  method  of  conducting 
direct  elections,  which  will  allow  the  individual  Or  direct 
voters  to  provide  for  further  concurrences  and  to  deter- 
mine their  elections  by  the  will  of  a concurring  majority 
of  all  the  voters  concerned,  we  have  now: 

Party  primary  elections  to  be  determined  through 
delegates,  where  the  primary  or  local  delegates  are  often 
selected  by  small  pluralities;  or  are  appointed  in  the 
personal  interests  of  certain  candidates.  These  local 
delegates,  in  conventions,  may  either  determine  local 
candidates,  or  they  may  select  further  delegates  for 
State  and  National  nominating  conventions  by  majority 
concurrences. 

In  voting  viva  voce  in  their  successive  trial  ballotings, 
a delegate  or  other  convened  voter  must  drop  his  first 
choice  in  order  to  name  a second  choice,  and  must 
thereby  vote  against  his  first  choice  as  if  he  was  the 
most  objectionable  candidate  in  the  field.  Because 
of  this  hesitancy  about  dropping  a delegate’s  or  other 
convened  voter’s  first  choice  the  ballotings  of  these 
convened  bodies  are  at  times  greatly  prolonged. 

If  a convened  body  adopts  the  arbitrary  rule  of  drop- 
ping the  candidate  who  has  received  the  least  support 
at  each  successive  balloting,  it  may  drop  out  the  very 
candidate — representing  moderate  opinions — upon  whom 
a majority  of  all  the  voters  or  delegates  would  have  first 
concurred,  as  a later  choice.  In  this  manner  many  a good 
“dark  horse”  has  been  lost  or  dropped  out  without  test- 
ing his  worth  or  actual  strength. 

From  innumerable  reasons,  neither  party  nominations 


9 


nor  final  elections  when  entrusted  to  a few  men  are  often 
conducted  in  the  interests  of  a majority  of  the  voters  or 
with  any  great  respect  for  their  wishes.  The  method  of 
conducting  elections  through  delegates  is  now  well  recog- 
nized as  the  greatest  source  of  our  constant  political 
corruption. 

We  then  have  the  final  or  general  elections  where  every 
voter  is  forced  to  support  a party  nominee,  or  one  who 
has  been  named  through  the  above  outlined  “ regular” 
party  primary  methods. 

A final  voter  is  today  allowed  but  one  choice,  or  he 
may  remain  away  from  the  polls.  For  many  reasons  he 
quite  often  chooses  the  latter. 

A further  concurrence  among  the  most  intelligent  and 
best  qualified  voters  in  the  land  is  not  permitted,  even 
though  they  may  fully  recognize  that  their  regular  party 
nominee  may  be  the  least  fitted  of  any  of  the  candidates 
in  the  field  from  among  whom  one  is  now  to  be  finally 
elected. 

Thus,  we  have  our  local  party  candidates  named  at 
best  by  a majority  of  delegates,  who  may  each  have  been 
selected  by  mere  pluralities  of  the  local  voters;  or,  we 
have  candidates  named  by  State  and  National  conven- 
tions of  delegates  who,  in  turn,  have  been  elected  by 
majorities  of  local  conventions  of  delegates,  and  these,  in 
turn,  by  local  pluralities  of  voters,  until  it  is  quite  evi- 
dent that  but  few  of  the  individual  voters  at  home 
have  had  any  real  part  in  making  the  party  nominations. 
And  so  on,  again,  our  final  elections  are  determined  by 
the  party  voters  who  have  supported  some  one  of  these* 
nominees,  even  though  this  body  of  party  voters  may  be 
but  a plurality  of  all  the  voters  who  have  taken  part  in 
the  final  election. 

Neither  are  our  party  primary  elections  nor  are  our 
final  elections  of  today  being  conducted  by,  nor  in 
the  interests  of  a majority  of  the  voters  concerned. 


10 


They  are  in  fact,  conducted  by  a few  men  who  are  al- 
lowed to  manipulate  and  control  the  ballots  of  & service- 
able plurality  of  the  party  voters,  who  then  prac- 
tically own  and  control  the  primary  delegates,  and 
yet  other  delegates  who  are  re-delegated  and  through 
these  delegates  control  our  party  nominations  and  thus 
indirectly  our  final  elections. 

For  no  better  reasons  than  because  the  voters  are 
limited  to  naming  but  one  choice  at  our  final  elections, 
and  hence  are  practically  limited  to  making  a choice 
between  the  two  leading  party  nominees,  we  are  today 
divided  into  two  permanent  political  parties,  and  are 
submitting  to  government  throughout  our  Local,  Munici- 
pal, State  and  National  affairs,  through  a majority  of  one 
or  the  other  of  these  two  permanent  parties,  instead  of  a 
government  conducted  by  a majority  of  all  the  voters 
concerned  in  each  instance. 

Give  the  intelligent  voters  of  any  Free  Government 
the  right  to  go  to  the  final  polls  and  vote  for  whom  they 
please,  and  the  right  to  provide  upon  their  direct  ballots 
for  further  concurrence  with  men  of  like  minds  or  simi- 
lar purposes  with  themselves , and  permanency  of  party 
organizations  will  have  but  little  cause  for  further 
existence.  Permanency  of  parties  has  no  just  place 
within  an  organization  of  free  people.  To  further  pro- 
vide for  their  legal  continuation  or  defense,  is  but  to 
add  a further  bulwark  for  the  continuance  of  political 
corruption  through  favoring  the  rule  of  a few  men. 

The  so-called  “direct  primaries”  now  being  legally 
provided  for  in  many  States  as  a means  of  avoiding  sub- 
mission to  delegates,  will  yet  be  ineffective  in  securing 
truthful  elections.  While  to  an  extent  they  may  blot  out 
much  of  the  corruption  which  has  been  bred  and  nur- 
tured through  the  system  of  delegating  and  delegate 


11 


conventions,  yet  they  do  not  provide  any  further  means 
for  the  widely  scattered  and  diversely  influenced,  yet  in- 
telligent voters  to  reach  further  concurrences  directly 
with  one  another. 

These  “direct  primary  elections”  allow  the  party  voters 
to  name  but  one  choice  on  their  ballots;  hence  they  must 
often  result  in  the  election  being  determined  by  a plu- 
rality choice,  and  where  many  candidates  are  to  be 
selected  from,  the  plurality  determining  the  party  candi- 
date may  represent  but  a small  fraction  of  the  voters  con- 
cerned. This  will  lead  enterprising  office-seekers  to  aim 
to  have  many  candidates  named,  and  thus  have  the 
party  vote  greatly  divided,  in  which  case  a much  smaller 
and  more  easily  controlled  plurality  may  easily  be  made 
sufficient  to  win. 

Hence  again,  with  this  plan  of  “direct  primaries”  we 
are  yet  to  have  party  nominations  determined  by  plu- 
ralities within  each  party,  while  our  final  elections  are  to 
be  determined  by  the  party  which  has  secured  the  largest 
plurality  following,  even  though  the  number  of  voters 
in  either  instance  may  be  very  much  less  than  a majority 
of  all  the  voters  concerned.  It  is  to  be  a final  decision 
by  a plurality  of  a plurality,  which  may  indeed  be  very 
much  less  than  a majority  of  all  the  voters  who  are  con- 
cerned in  the  final  election. 

It  is  idle  to  attempt  to  preserve  permanency  of  parties 
and  at  the  same  time  hope  to  blot  out  of  use  the  very 
methods  of  procedure  which  more  than  all  else  have 
developed  and  maintained  permanency  of  party  organi- 
zations, or  permanency  of  the  ruling  of  a few  men  within 
these  parties. 

Any  method  of  nominating  which  submits  to  the  nam- 
ing, or  even  the  suggesting  of  party  candidates  by  a 
“Committee,”  even  though  the  members  of  such  a nom- 
inating committee  have  been  selected  by  the  enrolled 


12 


voters  of  a party,  within  each  congressional  or  other  dis- 
trict, through  some  method  of  direct  election  which 
allows  a majority  or,  more  frequently,  a plurality  to 
elect,  does  not  differ  materially  from  submission  to  dele- 
gates who  are  now  similarly  selected.  You  can  not 
clothe  these  few  men  or  delegated  voters  with  some 
other  name,  or  direct  their  acts  through  the  use  of  some 
legal  verbiage,  which  will  in  any  way  lessen  their  secret 
relations,  or  their  secret  bargainings  with  candidates  for 
office  if  they  so  desire.  If,  then,  the  support  of  the  candi- 
dates named  by  the  committee  are  to  be  the  test  of  party 
regularity  nothing  will  be  gained. 

The  same  desire  to  secure  places  on  these  “Commit- 
tees,” or  to  become  members  of  ruling  subcommittees 
within  the  membership  of  such  State  committees,  will  be 
found  to  continue  as  heretofore.  Nor  can  there  be  any 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  same  secret  relationships 
which  now  obtain  between  candidates  for  office  and  dele- 
gates will  not  at  once  develop  under  the  new  title  of 
these  delegated  voters  when  empowered  to  make  or  sug- 
gest the  party  nominations.  Even  if  the  work  of  such 
nominating  committees  is  to  be  but  tentative;  or  is  to 
be  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  securing  fusion  with  other 
parties;  or  for  arranging  or  ameliorating  factional  dis- 
sents or  differences  within  the  one  party;  or  it  is  intended 
for  securing  a fair  distribution  of  the  candidates  among 
the  various  localities,  all  of  such  work  may  be  much 
more  safely  entrusted  to  the  intelligent  party  voters, 
when  they  have  been  empowered  to  name  provisional 
choices  upon  their  direct  ballots,  and  are  thus  to  be 
enabled  to  reach  more  intelligent  and  concerted  action 
with  their  fellow-voters. 

If  candidates  are  to  be  named  by  petitions,  requiring 
a certain  number  of  names  in  order  to  secure  a place  upon 
the  printed  ballots,  or  if  a candidate’s  name  may  be 
written  or  otherwise  placed  upon  any  ballot  at  the  voter’s 


13 


pleasure,  then  this  open  method  of  nominating  to  be 
conducted  by  the  people  themselyes  will  be  much  safer 
throughout  than  will  any  nominations  which  are  to  be 
made  by  any  few  men. 

There  has  been  a constant  fiction  held  out  to  the  peo- 
ple which  is,  that  a majority  of  any  delegates  who  have 
themselves  been  elected  by  pluralities ; or  that  a majority 
of  everycommittee  or  subcommittee  or  secret  conference 
body,  acting  under  some  delegated  authority  or  power, 
fairly  represents  a majority  of  the  individual  voters  con- 
cerned in  any  election.  This  fiction  held  brightly  before 
the  people  has  been  the  dazzling  point,  or  else  the  mis- 
leading shadow  which  has  allowed  a few  political  trick- 
sters or  manipulators  to  work  a sort  of  shell  game  on  the 
voters  everywhere.  Let  us  now  demand  that  a majority 
of  the  final  voters  concerned  may  hereafter  alone  deter- 
mine our  elections  of  men  to  office.  Let  us  avoid  the 
shadow  and  seek  the  will  of  the  real  majority  of  all  the 
voters  concerned. 

In  a “direct  election”  method  now  made  use  of 
in  France  and  in  other  continental  states,  and  else- 
where, a first  election  is  held,  and  if  a majority  of  the 
voters  have  not  concurred,  a second  voting  is  then  held, 
at  which  all  the  candidates  except  the  two  who  have 
received  the  largest  and  next  larger  support  are  arbi- 
trarily dropped  out , and  a choice  must  then  be  made 
between  these  tivo.  It  is  here  again  evident  that  an 
incentive  is  offered  to  have  the  voters  as  greatly  divided 
as  possible  at  the  first  voting,  so  that  the  needed  plu- 
rality, in  order  to  win  one  of  these  places,  may  be  small, 
while  the  final  choice  is  then  to  be  limited  to  one  of  these 
two  candidates,  neither  of  whom  may  be  the  true  choice 
of  a majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned. 

In  an  “Australian  method,”  which  has  been  proposed 


14 


for  adoption  in  some  of  our  States,  the  voters  are  re- 
quired to  name  a second  choice  upon  their  ballots.  Not, 
however,  for  the  purpose  of  further  concurring  directly 
with  their  fellow  voters,  but  to  provide  a substitute  for 
their  first  choice  when  these  first  choice  candidates  have 
been  arbitrarily  dropped  from  the  contest  by  reason  of 
their  having  received  the  lowest  support  at  the  first,  and 
again  at  each  successive  count  made  from  the  returns. 
This  arbitrary  dropping  out  of  “low”  candidates  is  practi- 
cally based  upon  the  same  scheme  for  concentrating  the 
voters  as  that  sometimes  adopted  by  convened  bodies  of 
voters  or  delegates. 

By  this  arbitrary  method  of  dropping  out  candidates 
on  account  of  being  “low”  it  is  easily  to  be  seen  that  the 
contest  must  necessarily  soon  be  decided  when  the  can- 
didates have  been  reduced  to  but  two.  Yet,  neither  of 
these  two  may  be  the  candidate  upon  whom  a majority 
would  truthfully  have  first  concurred.  But  in  the  drop- 
ping out  of  candidates  in  this  scheme  of  counting  there 
is  incidentally  a dropping  out  of  voters , on  account  of 
such  voters  having  supported  some  two  of  the  “low” 
candidates;  while  if  the  candidates  are  many  and  their 
supports  are  widely  distributed,  it  may  readily  happen 
that  but  a small  fraction  of  the  voters  originally  con- 
cerned, will  be  saved  to  take  part  in  the  final  contest. 

The  arbitrary  method  of  dropping  out  of  the  contest, 
both  of  candidates  and  of  voters,  is  greatly  emphasized 
in  this  most  illogical  and  impracticable  attempt  at  reach- 
ing a majority  concurrence  at  one  direct  voting.  To  drop 
out  candidates  on  account  of  their  support  being  “low” 
at  the  outset  and  thereafter  is  unwarrantable,  but  to  drop 
out  qualified  voters  from  the  final  contest  because  they 
have  supported  some  two  of  these  “low”  candidates  is 
in  its  effect  vicious  and  indefensible. 

In  the  method  of  conducting  direct  elections  I have 


15 


here  proposed  there  is  no  dropping  out  of  candidates, 
much  less  of  voters.  It  is  a simple  plan  for  the  building 
up  of  further  concurrences  provided  for  by  the  voters 
for  the  purpose  of  finding  the  choice  of  a concurring 
majority  of  all  the  voters  concerned.  The  method  is 
simple  and  entirely  practicable;  it  is  logical  and  truthful; 
it  is  ideal  in  its  significance  and  most  effective  in  its  re- 
sults, and  I sincerely  trust  it  will  yet  furnish  a true  corner- 
stone for  truthfully  conducted  elections,  upon  which  we 
may  build  A True  Representative  Form  of  Government, 
truthfully  expressing  the  will  of  a majority  of  all  the 
people. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  3-13-1909. 


Copyright  1909,  by  Thos.  D.  Ingrain,  M.  D. 


